Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states 'Calling this changes nothing: it returns a preview of what would change and a confirmation link,' which asserts pure read-only behavior, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. Per the MCP semantics of readOnlyHint ('the tool does not modify its environment'), the stated preview-only behavior should be readOnlyHint=true, so description and annotation give the agent directly conflicting signals about whether the call has side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, and the purpose is front-loaded. The middle sentence about money in minor units earns nothing here and appears to be copied from a commerce tool, diluting an otherwise lean block of text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 12-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description supplies the single most important missing piece: that the call returns a preview plus a confirmation link and only the merchant can commit it, which is exactly what an agent needs to set expectations. Parameter detail is largely delegated to the 83%-covered schema, though the irrelevant money sentence slightly weakens the whole.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents body HTML, author, handle, cover, excerpt, categories, tags and status; the description does not need to restate them. The one parameter-flavored sentence ('Money is integer minor units (cents)') is a stray artifact — this tool has no monetary parameter — so it adds noise rather than meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Write a blog post') that maps cleanly to blog_posts_create and reads distinctly from the list-style sibling blog_posts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other content-writing siblings such as upsert_content or set_page_sections, so the agent gets no boundary guidance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over blog_posts (list), upsert_content, or any other content-writing sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The confirmation-workflow sentence describes behavior after selection rather than the conditions that should trigger selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.